9911796707
TMI Blog1963 (8) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In our opinion, the High Court has rightly held that all the ingredients of the offence under s. 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act have been established. It may be mentioned that it has not been disputed before us that if we believe the story of the recovery of the gold from the appellant, the circumstances are sufficient to establish that Lal Singh seized the gold in the reasonable belief that these were smuggled goods. Appeal dismissed. - 152 of 1962 - - - Dated:- 29-8-1963 - K.C. Das Gupta and M. Hidayatullah, JJ. [Judgment per : K.C. Das Gupta, J.]. - This appeal by special leave is against a conviction and sentence under s. 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. The appellant was acquitted by the trial court, but on appeal by the State of Rajasthan, the Rajasthan High Court set aside the order of acquittal and convicted the appellant under s. 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, and sentenced him to rigorous unprisonment for one year. The prosecution case was that on receipt of some information that gold smuggled from Pakistan was being carried, Lal Singh. Sub-Inspector of the Check-post of Barmer, followed the appellant into a railway train at Luni railway station, and in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the seizure was made, and that s. 178-A of the Sea Customs Act applied. In the opinion of the High Court, the accused had failed to prove that the gold was not smuggled and that under the provisions of s. 178-A as also on the evidence in the case, the gold had been established to be smuggled gold. All the ingredients of the offence, according to the High Court, had been proved, and therefore, the accused was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. 3. Three points were raised before us by Mr. S.K. Kapur in support of the appeal. The first was that the High Court was not justified in disturbing the trial court's finding that the seizure of the gold from the accused had not been proved. The second point urged was that the High Court had fallen into an error in thinking that Lal Singh had authority to seize the gold at the place where the seizure was made. The third contention was that in any case even if s. 178-A applied and it was found that the gold was smuggled, the prosecution had failed to prove the necessary mens rea in the accused that was necessary to constitute the offence. 4. On the question of seizure of gold from the accused, the prosecution relied on the testimony ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hukma Ram, but admitted that in the same compartment a purse was recovered. It has to be noticed that when Lal Singh was examined, no suggestion was made to him in cross- examination that any other person had been searched in the compartment. It is not unreasonable to think, therefore, that when Poonam Chand is speaking of search in the compartment of Hukma and the find of a purse there though stopping short of saying what was recovered from it, his evidence unwittingly supports the story given by Lal Singh about the search and the recovery of the gold. It does not stand to reason that if two other persons had been searched and gold had been found within one of them, this appellant, a pointsman in the Railway, should be falsely implicated and the person from whom the recovery of gold was made, should have been allowed; to, escape. The accused suggested in his statement that Lal Singh was inimically disposed towards him because on one occasion Lal Singh had asked him to serve water and he had not done it at once. There was no suggestion about this incident to Lal Singh in his cross- examination, and we are convinced that this is: entirely false. On a consideration of Lal Singh's ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Lal Singh was not authorized to search the accused or to seize the gold. The High Court, on the contrary, has taken the view that each of the officers mentioned in the Schedule has been appointed a Customs Officer for the entire area which has "jurisdiction of the Collector of Land Customs, Delhi". 6. In our opinion, this is the correct and only possible construction. Section 3 of the Land Customs Act authorizes the Central Government to appoint by notification in the official gazette one person to be the Collector of Land Customs for any area adjoining a foreign frontier and specified in the notification. The section also authorizes the Central Government to appoint by a similar notification such other persons as it thinks fit to be Customs Officers for the same area. "Foreign frontier" has been defined in s. 2, cl. (e) of the Act as the frontier separating any foreign territory from any part of India. "Land Customs area" has been defined in cl. (g) of the same section as any area adjoining a foreign frontier for which a Collector of Land Customs has been appointed under s. 3. From the definition of foreign frontier in cl. (e), it is clear that an area adjoining the frontiers se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ict mentioned in the Schedule but for the whole areas which forms the Jurisdiction of the Collector of Land Customs, Delhi and is the area adjoining the West Pakistan frontier for which a Collector of Land Customs has already been appointed under s. 3. We find no justification for reading into the Schedule any indication of the area where the officers will operate. The Schedule purports to mention the different officers of different districts who are appointed Land Customs Officers-not for those particular Districts but for the entire area. Any other reading of the words used in the main body of the notification would be not only against the plain meaning of the words used but is likely to defeat the object for which Land Customs Officers are appointed. 7. We have, therefore, come to the conclusion that the construction put by the High Court on the notification is right, and Lal Singh, being an officer in the District of Barmer which is mentioned in the Schedule, was an officer for the entire area which formed the jurisdiction of the Collector of Land Customs. Delhi, including the place where the seizure was made, and was therefore competent to make the seizure. 8. There remain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
